don't really know how this will affect larger business like Netflix, Google, Amazon etc. but should theoretically make it easier for startups to get
into the market. I'm worried about the effects on ISP's and how it will affect consumer usage.

originally posted by: smarterthanyou
don't really know how this will affect larger business like Netflix, Google, Amazon etc. but should theoretically make it easier for startups to get
into the market. I'm worried about the effects on ISP's and how it will affect consumer usage.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
The Open Internet proposal passed soon after Chairman Wheeler's comment: "This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment was
a plan to regulate free speech."

Depending on how you think about it, it could be argued that the first amendment is a plan to regulate speech or, at least, a plan to
categorically prevent the regulation of free speech.

I hope that helps to clarify my perspective on what I consider to be pure disingenuous sophistry and a blatantly misleading specious
comparison.

originally posted by: greencmp
We will just have to wait and see, whatever we used to have is now gone.

I just don't understand where disinformation like that comes from. Seriously.

Every aspect of the summary, and comments from industry insiders in favor of Net Neutrality who have seen the new rules, are the exact opposite -- it
preserves what we now have, and prevents the kind of BS Comcast pulled on Netflix.

From what I took out of the decision reached today, it's a win for 'the little guy'.

Take that, throttlers.

The regulatory agency voted 3-2 Thursday in favor of rules aimed at enforcing what's called "net neutrality." That's the idea that service
providers shouldn't intentionally block or slow web traffic, creating paid fast lanes on the Internet.
The new rules say that any company providing a broadband connection to your home or phone would have to act in the public interest and conduct
business in ways that are "just and reasonable.”

originally posted by: greencmp
We will just have to wait and see, whatever we used to have is now gone.

I just don't understand where disinformation like that comes from. Seriously.

Every aspect of the summary, and comments from industry insiders in favor of Net Neutrality who have seen the new rules, are the exact opposite -- it
preserves what we now have, and prevents the kind of BS Comcast pulled on Netflix.

It is not disinformation.

I know that you think that because you are a player in the industry, you have a greater stake in the results of this power grab because you think it
will help you. Maybe it will and maybe it won't.

Besides my surprise at your unquestioning confidence that it will be the former, I don't think you represent the best interests of industry outsiders
even if it is the former.

It's parroted sound bytes which were devised by the big corporate ISP's and media conglomerates who want to slow-down unfavored Internet content in
a tiered Internet that is subject to corporate censorship.

It's parroted sound bytes which were devised by the big corporate ISP's and media conglomerates who want to slow-down unfavored Internet content in a
tiered Internet that is subject to corporate censorship.

All of my statements which are not surrounded by quotes are my own.

I would thank you not to presume that I am a plagiarist, a liar or a fool.

Who decides what is "just and reasonable" ? What we have right now (well before this bill was passed) is traffic shaping by all the major ISPs
except Verizon, to my understanding. There are Qos protocols, and traffic shaping algorithms handled by ISPs. The physical infrastructure stays the
same, so the same hard limitations of the lines exist, the same customers exist, all that may change is marketing strategies, different parts of the
equation.

ISPs have different traffic shaping policies, but for simplicity sake, let's assume 95% of users enjoy for the most part limited throttling. This
would include pretty much just Qos, so the sites will all load the same, but the individual content may vary in buffer size, stutter depending on
line loading, and such. The 5%, power users, as they're called, are given more interest and throttled depending on how each ISP deals with these
users.

That's where we were. Now, what exactly was being proposed outside of net neutrality? Just a more open way of throttling. Shifting from the power
users, to the power websites, I think. In the process, the marketing could capitalize on this, and repackage traffic tiers at two levels, to my
understanding. Content providers, so with the servers going to users, then again with users wishing to reach servers. Right now we have the latter in
the form of internet packages ISPs give to end users. I think the proposal was to further tier out relations, or peering between the content provider
and their customers/consumers of the traffic.

We kinda already have this. ISPs pay for premium peering with different ranked upstream providers. It's a matter of quality, overall, but comes down
to reliability and speed. I guess what I'm trying to get at, is this net neutrality seems to simplify the equation, but I think that puts pressures
on the ISP to drop everyone equally to keep their lines from saturating. Somewhere in the equation the variables must be rebalanced.

We haven't been really, everything is the same as it was prior to the whole debacle. We have no fast lane, none of the ISP's here complain about
it either. At least not enough for me to have noticed, and I worked in telecom for a lot of years.

The issue we have in Canada is cost, because of lack of competition. Canada pays some of the highest fees in the world from a dollar per Gigabit
standpoint.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.